Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 28 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - the case of Revenue is that the respondent has not filed the relevant documents for entertaining the refund claims - Held that - the respondent has filed all the relevant documents for entertaining their refund claims. But while filing the appeals by the Revenue the show cause notice issued to the respondent has not been examined and the appeals were filed without considering the relevant documents before them. It shows that instead of ending the departmental officers are increasing the litigation with the assesses. The said act of the officer is not appreciable - On such flimsy grounds the appeal is not required to be filed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
- Appeal against refund claims sanctioned by the Commissioner (Appeals) - Validity of refund claims filed by the respondent - Examination of relevant documents for refund claims - Entitlement of the respondent for service tax refund - Precedent set by Redico Khaitan Limited Vs. CST Analysis: The judgment involves an appeal by the Revenue against the refund claims sanctioned by the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent, a builder, received advances from prospective buyers for flats but later canceled the agreements, refunding the amounts along with service tax. The Revenue contended that relevant documents were not provided for the refund claims and presumed no refunds were made. The respondent argued that all necessary documents were submitted, and the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly approved the refunds as no services were rendered to the buyers. The judge noted that the Revenue failed to consider the documents submitted by the respondent, leading to unnecessary litigation. The judge emphasized that the Revenue should not file appeals based on presumptions without verifying facts. The judge highlighted the Revenue's presumption that refunds were not made to buyers without proper verification. Referring to the case of Redico Khaitan Limited Vs. CST, where it was ruled that refunding advances along with service tax amounts to non-provision of services, the judge supported the respondent's entitlement to claim the service tax paid. The judge concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly sanctioned the refunds, finding no errors in the decision. Consequently, the judge dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the orders in favor of the respondent. In summary, the judgment addressed the issues of verifying relevant documents for refund claims, the entitlement of the respondent for service tax refund, and the precedent set by a previous case. It emphasized the importance of considering all evidence before filing appeals and upheld the decision to grant refunds to the respondent based on the facts presented.
|